6 ms·

Mr. Musk seems to have a habit of publicizing his back-of-the-napkin calculations. "Based on the Model S track record so far, you have a zero percent chance of

by MrMeker 13y ago

Mr. Musk seems to have a habit of publicizing his back-of-the-napkin calculations. "Based on the Model S track record so far, you have a zero percent chance of being hurt in an accident resulting in a battery fire." It seems to have worked well for him. Maybe I should pick it up.

tgb 13y ago
Unfortunately, his napkin doesn't have the right calculations! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Succession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Succession
svantana 13y ago
He certainly doesn't shy away from questionable use of statistics for his own benefit. That and the quip about the odds of being struck by lightning are quite ridiculous IMO.
- peeters 13y ago
  Yeah, seriously. Why even mention that lightning stat? The absolute odds of me dying from falling from the top of a building are pretty darn small too, but they go up quite significantly when I am walking near the edge of the building's roof without a harness. Obviously your risk of being in a Tesla that is on fire is much greater than being struck by lightning when you are a Tesla driver!
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
omegant 13y ago
Mr. Musk seems to be ready to put his money where his napkin calculations are.. maybe that´s the secret.
gambiting 13y ago
It's just like in the 60-ties the US government calculated that there is a 0% risk of accidental detonation of nuclear bombs[1],because they have not experienced it yet. I believe that electric cars are safer than gasoline cars,but the sample size for Tesla is way to small to draw such conclusions yet. [1] Eric Schlosser, "Command And Control"
- dkokelley 13y ago
  Out of curiosity, has there been an accidental detonation of a nuclear bomb yet? I browsed through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accide... but could only find non-nuclear detonations.
  - pwnna 13y ago
    There were a close call involving a bomber that accidentally ditched a nuke (i think?). It was the last fail safe that stopped it. I remember reading about it here, don't have the article in hand. I'm sure you can find it.
    - gambiting 13y ago
      Read that book I mentioned in the original post. It mentions plenty of nuclear-related accidents. The one you probably think about happened when an armed thermonuclear bomb fell out of a bomber, yanking the arming wire out, arming every subsystem as it fell - barometric switches activated,thermal batteries ignited , and upon hitting the ground the piezoelectric crystals in the nose cone crushed activating the high explosives surrounding the core. It would have detonated, except that the "fire-safe" switch in the cockpit was not switch to "fire". That switch was just two very low voltage wires running close together, and it was found later that pretty much anything in that bomber could have triggered it. It was extremely lucky that that bomb has not detonated that day. There were also a few bombs which were lost in fire on the ground, couple of those had their high explosives ignite without producing a nuclear yield but spreading plutonium around, contaminating ground. There were bombers which fell apart in the air, which crashed, most of the time the nuclear bombs they were carrying survived intact,but a few times those crashes resulted in a widespread contamination with plutonium - a famous one in Spain and another near an American Polar station that the bomber was monitoring from Soviet attack - that one is particularly interesting,because had the bombs aboard that bomber detonated and destroyed that station, it would be extremely likely that the US government would assume that it was destroyed by a Soviet nuclear strike,and not by their own machinery - and that would probably cause them to retaliate starting a nuclear war.
deelowe 13y ago
Agreed. While I agree with his thesis that the risk with electric cars is much lower, this "analysis" is very infuriating. He speaks in absolutes and compares the entire automotive industry to a single premium luxury car model. Of course he knows this. This is just a PR piece instead of a well articulated rebuttal of the fire risk claims. That said, he presents it as something else altogether (and will defend it quite boldly). Full disclosure: I'm an electric car owner (leaf) and I want to see tesla succeed, but Elon can be a rather poor spokesman at times.

by MrMeker 13y ago

tgb 13y ago

Unfortunately, his napkin doesn't have the right calculations! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Succession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Succession

svantana 13y ago

He certainly doesn't shy away from questionable use of statistics for his own benefit. That and the quip about the odds of being struck by lightning are quite ridiculous IMO.

peeters 13y ago
Yeah, seriously. Why even mention that lightning stat? The absolute odds of me dying from falling from the top of a building are pretty darn small too, but they go up quite significantly when I am walking near the edge of the building's roof without a harness. Obviously your risk of being in a Tesla that is on fire is much greater than being struck by lightning when you are a Tesla driver!

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

omegant 13y ago

Mr. Musk seems to be ready to put his money where his napkin calculations are.. maybe that´s the secret.

gambiting 13y ago

It's just like in the 60-ties the US government calculated that there is a 0% risk of accidental detonation of nuclear bombs[1],because they have not experienced it yet. I believe that electric cars are safer than gasoline cars,but the sample size for Tesla is way to small to draw such conclusions yet. [1] Eric Schlosser, "Command And Control"

dkokelley 13y ago
Out of curiosity, has there been an accidental detonation of a nuclear bomb yet? I browsed through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accide... but could only find non-nuclear detonations.
- pwnna 13y ago
  There were a close call involving a bomber that accidentally ditched a nuke (i think?). It was the last fail safe that stopped it. I remember reading about it here, don't have the article in hand. I'm sure you can find it.
  - gambiting 13y ago
    Read that book I mentioned in the original post. It mentions plenty of nuclear-related accidents. The one you probably think about happened when an armed thermonuclear bomb fell out of a bomber, yanking the arming wire out, arming every subsystem as it fell - barometric switches activated,thermal batteries ignited , and upon hitting the ground the piezoelectric crystals in the nose cone crushed activating the high explosives surrounding the core. It would have detonated, except that the "fire-safe" switch in the cockpit was not switch to "fire". That switch was just two very low voltage wires running close together, and it was found later that pretty much anything in that bomber could have triggered it. It was extremely lucky that that bomb has not detonated that day. There were also a few bombs which were lost in fire on the ground, couple of those had their high explosives ignite without producing a nuclear yield but spreading plutonium around, contaminating ground. There were bombers which fell apart in the air, which crashed, most of the time the nuclear bombs they were carrying survived intact,but a few times those crashes resulted in a widespread contamination with plutonium - a famous one in Spain and another near an American Polar station that the bomber was monitoring from Soviet attack - that one is particularly interesting,because had the bombs aboard that bomber detonated and destroyed that station, it would be extremely likely that the US government would assume that it was destroyed by a Soviet nuclear strike,and not by their own machinery - and that would probably cause them to retaliate starting a nuclear war.

deelowe 13y ago

Agreed. While I agree with his thesis that the risk with electric cars is much lower, this "analysis" is very infuriating. He speaks in absolutes and compares the entire automotive industry to a single premium luxury car model. Of course he knows this. This is just a PR piece instead of a well articulated rebuttal of the fire risk claims. That said, he presents it as something else altogether (and will defend it quite boldly). Full disclosure: I'm an electric car owner (leaf) and I want to see tesla succeed, but Elon can be a rather poor spokesman at times.